Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. – Galatians 3:16-18
JSYK
Don’t get me wrong,
I’m not even touching on the possibility
that we can keep the Law for our salvation -
Sola Fide, dude.
So, I don’t doubt that my argument here can be refuted by someone more educated and intelligent than I am. I’ll go with it anyway though I insist that readers not treat this as an exhaustive coverage of my position. I’m not entirely situated on a side, nor am I filled to the brim with decisional data for either side. It’s time to at least start squaring the corners and so…
The question has been itching in my head for some time and it needs scratching. Is the Law, in its specific directives and consequences, the norm by which Christians should live and how governments should operate? 
Or are believers to look to the New Testament words of Christ for our guidance in moral and ethical activity. In Bahnsen’s “Theonomy In Christian Ethics” the argument is presented that Christ (and following apostles) intended to reiterate the Old Testament Law in its original particulars.
I have a couple of problems with this. First off, the practical/reasonable issue: Too much cultural correction has to be made in order for the OT system to endure outside the Jewish world of yesteryear. I don’t think I need to go into specifics – just read through Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Also, if the Law is still the guiding principle of practice and ethics for believers, has this theme held up consistently throughout history after Christ instituted the church. If it hasn’t, then in light of this disparity it seems very difficult to accept claims that entire swaths of the last two thousand years’ churches are a-scriptural or antinomian. Granted, my reading of Church history is still barely getting underway, but so far I haven’t heard much about this particular trend of Law remaining.
Next, clear direction from Scripture. I don’t see where we can still be under the Law and its penal system when Christ taught in Matthew 5 that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” – we should be dealing out the penalty to just about every man alive. I know this may sound silly, but think about it. Christ throws the law in our face just the way it should be thrown: in order to convince us that we’re in a hopeless state unless He is our Savior.
Granted, the basic laws of the Decalogue stand as proper guidance. Don’t murder, don’t steal etc. Those are DUH items and Christ reiterates them (with frosting). Note that, however, He does not maintain the penalties associated with these laws. Christ instead pays the penalties on the cross and then offers us sweet release from the continuing penalties: we confess our sins now, and He forgives us (1st John 1:9).
Here’s where I’m thinking: Those laws and penalties are not explicit for today because
- We’re not in a theocracy ruled by religious heads.
- Christ handed out the keys to His kingdom church-wise – in otherwards, access through the Gospel, not through enforcing the Law.
- Christ also directed authority to the secular government, not restoring the Law as His opponents had hoped (Luke 20)
Can we expect the secular world to comply with God’s Old Testament Law? Can we demand that the government take its cues from Moses and tailor the penal code to match that of a theocratic society? I don’t think so. The Law, specifically the OT Law was given to the Jews in their own context, in their part of the Bible narrative. It was their guardian and judge. We saw (and see today) what comes of Pharisees and their ilk. The Law is doomed to be misapplied and twisted in the hands of men. Well intentioned or not, it does not endure as a valid system of ethics and practice, either for justification or for obedience. I suspect that there’s a hermeneutical error in here somewhere: In missing the big contextual picture of the story of Israel, there’s a literalistic approach to the Law (at least, it appears to me).
It’s a great check-and-balance for Christians today, as far as the relevant parts go (Decalogue), but are we bound to the actual wording and particular instances of the Old Law? Applying it to worldly governments is certainly not workable – since when do pagans want to or care about the Law? In an ideal world that was Christian in culture, the Law would be workable and the government could mete out the penal system; unfortunately for the Law, in an ideal world we would not need to worry about the penal system because we’d all be Christians and obedient.
The argument that makes claims based on Christ’s words in Matthew 5:17-20 doesn’t fly well either: It’s looking at the Law in regards to justification. Reword here, if I may: “If you choose to claim the Law as your path to righteousness, it will not ever go away nor will it change. You’ll be bound to it and do much better than the Pharisees if you think it’s going to get you into Heaven. How much better? As good as ME, The Son Of God.” If I read this passage in error, correct me ASAP, but if I read it correctly, there’s nothing that says the OT Law continues today as our conscience-binding LITERAL operating procedure.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. – Galatians 3:21-26
As a sort of closing comment, I think that we need to look at hope. In Christ is our hope. We need that hope. I think that, to remain under the particular Law as our unmoving standard for practice and ethics is to dance too near the edge of hope. We hope in Christ and His righteousness and the demands of this brand of Law, especially with the requisite penalties, I think ask too much. Better to heap burning coals on their heads, Paul style. Moral? Yes. literal? No.
____________________________________________
Here is some resource material I’ve scanned:
Applying The Old Testament Law Today
The Covenant of Grace: A Key To Understanding The Bible
Preach Only To Some? An elderly blog post from a good friend at church who has been encouraging me to work through this whole issue carefully.
Theonomy from Third Millenium Ministries
The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document? By Dr. Ligon Duncan.
Monergism has tons of stuff to wade through.
Continuing on, I would like to repost the continuing conversation that started with
I dealt with some initial thoughts on theonomy last week. I have refinements and more questions today.
The sermon today was on Genesis 10:1 through 11:26. The center of the passage in 11:1-9 pulls the preceding and following sections together into a tight story that is packed with valuable theology.
One of our church’s statements of basic belief states that we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it has been translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Also, we believe all that God has revealed, all the He does now reveal and the He will yet reveal many great and important thing pertaining to the kingdom of God.
I’m sure that you understand that for us, the Bible a foundational book of scripture but clearly there are others. Any version of the Bible that currently exists had been through too many ungodly interpretive hands over the centuries to qualify as God’s only doctrinal link to man and to accurately deliver everything that God intended for His children to have. I recently read that our current Bibles are made up of over 1,500 documents and not one of them is an original. They are copies of interpretations of translations.
The Nicene Creed is still being interpreted and ecumenically debated 1,500+ years later. There is a 1975 version and a 1977 version that the Catholics are finally going to accept. I also understand that many of the traditional churches have their own slightly different versions of it. If churches want to use it a foundation of their faith, that’s fine, but we don’t use it at all.
I’m not sure which church you attend but using the same basic creed and Bible has resulted in literally thousands of different religions in the world each with their own interpretation and views of those basic building blocks. Clearly the differences are significant enough to motivate men to start another new church…Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of Christ…etc.
If a person wants to belong to those churches and become a follower of Jesus Christ and live a good Christian life, that’s not a bad thing. Every person can/must exercise their own personal agency and live with the consequences of their choices.
Another one of our beliefs…we claim the privilege of worshipping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where of what they may. Apparently your church does not afford mankind those same privileges without a measure of disrespect, conflict and confrontation.
Think about it…in Biblical times when God wanted to interact with His children, he literally talked to them…sometimes in a dream, in a burning bush, face to face etc. The scripture and other historical writing of that time like the Dead Sea Scroll are literally full of that interaction. It’s His normal way of doing things.
Yet the traditionals’ view has taken a few simple words in the Bible uttered by Jesus…It is finished…and parlayed that into an interpretation that the heaven’s are closed, revelation has ceased, God no longer talks to His children and we are now separated from God. The traditionals have placed the whole hope of their salvation on an incomplete and imperfect book and block access to anything better than that that God might want to offer.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
In our faith we’re encouraged to constantly validate what leaders teach with inspiration and confirmation from God. I’ll ask God if what I have just been taught is correct and I get an answer. I think more church goers of all faiths should do that. And when/if they come to an understanding that what they just heard is not correct, irrespective of the tradition that’s been taught, they need to personally act on that inspiration. The asking should be an easy thing to do but surprisingly for many, it takes a lot of moral courage. It’s like asking God directly is a form of capitulation.
I accord unto you and any other man the privilege to worship how and when he/you wish, and NO; I won’t be scanning your church’s blogs to perpetually post derogatory and confrontive comments about your erroneous doctrine.
If God someday deigns to give you your own personal burning bush experience and communicate with you directly even if its in a manner that your church doesn’t teach, I’d advise you to temporarily suspend your disbelief long enough to accept the invitation and listen to Him very carefully and see what He has to say to you. It can happen.
May God bless you.